Case Laws |
Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1960 1960 (4) This
|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 64 of 64 Records
-
1960 (4) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and on a true construction of the agreement between the Central Bank of India and Sheel Chandra the salary and other emoluments received by Sheel Chandra as treasurer of the said bank are assessable under the head ' Salary ' or under the head ' Profits and gains of business?
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, Sheel Chandra's emoluments as treasurer of the Central Bank of India Ltd. were rightly assessed in the hands of the Hindu undivided family of which he is the karta?
Held that:- The emoluments received by Sheel Chandra, were in the nature of salary and therefore assessable under section 7 of the Income-tax Act and not under section 10 of the Act as profits and gains of business and the salary was the income of the individual, i.e., Sheel Chandra, and not the income of the Hindu undivided family.
The High Court was erroneous on both questions which were referred to it and they should both have been decided in favour of the appellant.
-
1960 (4) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the firm of Amulakh Amichand & Co. is one of the affairs of the Hindu undivided family of Gandalal because that is the only affair which has relation to the income sought to be taxed and on which the appellant relies for determining the residence of the family?
Whether the control and management of the said affair, looked at from the point of view of the Hindu undivided family, is situate?
Held that:- Residence under section 4A(b) of a Hindu undivided family is determined by the seat of control and management of its affairs, and in the matter of partnership businesses in British India the Hindu undivided family as such had no connexion whatsoever with its control and management. If the seat of control is divided, the family may have more than one place of residence ; and unless it is wholly outside the taxable territories, the family will be taken to be resident in such territories for the purposes of the Act. But where as in this case in respect of the partnership business, the family as such has nothing to do with its control and management, we fail to see how the existence of such a partnership will determine residence of the family within the meaning of section 4A(b). Appeal dismissed.
-
1960 (4) TMI 2 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Confiscation - Seizure of documents - Constitutional validity ... ... ... ... ..... affecting in any manner free trade by merchants and purchases by consumers and the argument advanced seems to be extravagant. Further in the procedure prescribed for adjudication there is a right of appeal and revision and accordingly sufficient safeguard to protect the interest of innocent purchasers. I therefore negative the contention of Mr. Mehta that the provisions in Section 167(8) are unreasonable restrictions and violative of Articles 9(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution. 41.There is no question of Section 167(8) being violative of Article 31 of the Constitution. The provision for confiscation is not for acquisition or requisition within the meaning of that Article. The confiscation is merely penalty and there being authority of law for inflicting that penalty the contention of the petitioners in that connection must be negatived. 42.The very same contention was raised in the case of Shewpujanrai and negatived. In the circumstances the petition is dismissed with costs.
-
1960 (4) TMI 1 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Penalty - Customs ... ... ... ... ..... the expression concerned . In this case, I have found that there was no evidence referred to by the Collector which could lead to any possible finding, that any of these petitioners was concerned in the act of smuggling itself. Therefore it is really a case of imposing a penalty without having the jurisdiction to do so, that is imposing the personal penalty prescribed by Section 167(8). This is a case where in my opinion, the court ought to exercise its discretion in favour of interference by the issue of a writ of certiorari, despite the fact that the petitioners did not avail themselves of the alternative statutory remedy of an appeal. The rule nisi is confirmed to the extent indicated above, treating the orders imposing the penalties as severable. The order imposing the penalty of confiscation of gold will be allowed to stand. A writ of certiorari will issue setting aside the orders of imposition of personal penalties on each of the three petitioners. No order as to costs.
|
|